swansont

Yep. As I and others have repeatedly pointed out, there are a number of words where lay definitions and physics ones differ, sometimes significantly. (e.g. coincidence) I would hope that physicists, at least, would recognize this.

You mean potatoes with copper and zinc electrodes jammed in them? The electricity comes from the metals. The potato is a salt bridge, conducting electricity. Not the source. https://www.smithsonianmag.com/innovation/a-potato-battery-can-light-up-a-room-for-over-a-month-180948260/ the potato is not, in and of itself, an energy source. What the potato does is simply help conduct electricity by acting as what’s called a salt-bridge between the the two metals, allowing the electron current to move freely across the wire to create electricity. Numerous fruits rich in electrolytes like bananas and strawberries can also form this chemical reaction. They're basically nature’s version of battery acid. (You can do the same thing just using salt water, if you build it right. Those plans are also somewhere out on the intertubes)

Not sure where you're going with this. The energy of the electron states in e.g. a hydrogen atom is not the mass energy of the electron, it's the energy from the electrostatic interaction. The potential well is 13.6 eV deep for the ground state electron. In He+ this would quadruple (Z^2 dependence), even though the electron's mass energy is the same An electron in the Bohr model has a kinetic energy of 13.6 eV and a potential energy of -27.2 eV, but we must recall the Bohr model is not a physically correct depiction.

It's a standing wave in a potential well

If electrons had a trajectory, they would be accelerating, and would radiate. QM is why we have orbitals and not orbits, and the location is undetermined unless measured. The relativistic corrections are to the energy, not the speed. Most journal papers are careful about this; many pop-sci descriptions are not. It's a sloppiness of explaining things with classical descriptions that don't actually hold up when compared to the science. It's understandable when you're trying to reach a broader audience, but in this case it's watered down to the point where it's wrong. Yes, but I was trying to make the point (to the OP; you already know this) that in science we quantify things. And the situation being proposed has been looked at, and the only effect we see is the one we know about. It's small, and it leaves no room for some other conjecture.

I doubt it. Quantum computing helps with factoring, so it helps when when you have a number that's the product of two large prime numbers https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-time_pad#Quantum_and_post-quantum_cryptography an adversary with a quantum computer would still not be able to gain any more information about a message encrypted with a one time pad than an adversary with just a classical computer. Whether a book cipher counts, I'm not 100% sure, but it's not the kind of encryption the quantum systems are supposed to solve. Trivia: I once saw that someone had addressed a letter to my workplace with the proposed recipient "Beale cipher crew" I can neither confirm nor deny that such a crew existed

We do, in accordance with E=mc^2 IOW, in accordance with mainstream physics. But because c is so big, the mass change is small, and difficult to observe. But that's been done; an isotope of Fe in a Penning trap was observed to have two different frequencies, which means two masses - one for the excited state and one for the ground state. http://blogs.scienceforums.net/swansont/archives/278 In principle, any energy other than that associated with linear momentum of the center-of-mass will raise the mass of an object. Again, this is standard relativity, and not evidence in support of any new hypothesis (in fact, it's likely evidence against any new hypothesis, since we only see the increase that we expect.) QM doesn't treat electrons as moving; there is no classical trajectory one can assign to them.

! Moderator Note Please provide a model and supporting evidence.

! Moderator Note Copy that. Thread locked.

We want science. This being a science discussion board. Which all beside the point, since GR reduces to Newtonian gravity and quantum gravity is similarly only important for small scales. And doesn’t look like magnetism.

! Moderator Note Assertions with nothing to back them does not meet the requirements of Speculations.

I think he wanted to be there so the crowd would be cheering him, and he could exhort them to march on. I don’t think he had any intention of physically leading the charge into the building.

The full equation is E^2 = p^2c^2 + m^2c^4 The total energy depends on mass and momentum (related to kinetic energy)

! Moderator Note Please do not hijack threads. If you have an alternative science view and are willing to defend it, open a thread in speculations. This is not the place to raise objections to mainstream science

I think we’re swimming upstream of a press release/pop-sci filter. It says the capacity is 200 MW but that’s a power, so it doesn’t really make sense. The 13 hours may be how long it stays hot enough to be usable, and safe. I found out recently there’s US building code/regulations/recommendations on minimum water heater temperature, below which Legionnaires’ disease becomes a risk. Probably don’t want to pump Legionella bacteria all around the city.

It's my example. And I was trying to point out that the object can bottom out. Naturally, I will use an example where that will happen. ("there needs to be enough of the fluid present for this to happen. Otherwise it will bottom out.") Others are telling me that no it will not bottom out, and using their own examples. But that doesn't rebut my claim. All I need is one example where it bottoms out and my claim is true. And any claim that it won't bottom out are false. All the rest is just moving the goalposts. You're rebutting something, but not my claim. I'm not addressing situation 2 (though there is still a minimum fluid amount required). I never was.

The problem is that's not the situation you described. You need to have this container on all sides, so the water is not free to flow away from the object that is floating. You lose this once you "dig up in front of it" (P.S. I fixed the link in your post. URL shorteners don't normally fly here.)

I am talking about the scenario of the OP. I am not, and have not been, addressing any of the variants with new variables that others have introduced. You need to define your variables. What is D? The pressure in the fluid (above atmosphere) will be pgh, where p is the density and h is the depth of the fluid. In my example h is 10^-2 m. The pressure will be about 100 Pa. But your area is 10^-4 m^2. How are you lifting 5 N with that? Here's my brief thought: Archimedes principle says that the buoyancy force is equal to the weight of the liquid displaced. If you have a smaller mass displaced, the weight will be greater than the buoyancy force, and the object will sink. Now it's your turn: back up your claim. Where does the force come from to float the object?

Stability was not a criterion. You keep adding caveats. I'm pretty sure Archimedes needed a fluid. His tub was not empty when he shouted, "Eureka!" Explain to my why taller walls will not make the wood bottom out under the scenario I described. Where's the physics? Sufficient liquid? You said "Add a bit of water" - there was no threshold. No, and that's irrelevant. But they do run aground in shallow water, which is my point. If your assertion of "add a bit of water" was true, then they would not run aground.

Will making the walls taller do anything in my problem? Please explain how that makes any difference.

! Moderator Note "Your experience" doesn't really matter; it needs to be mainstream science if you're going to cite it in support of anything. Also, you posted this in philosophy, so you are expected to discuss philosophy. If you have a model of consciousness that you are willing to defend, post it in speculations.

Beware papers that reference the author a lot, and especially if one of the references is on the Alcubierre Warp Drive. Sonny White has a history of making fanciful claims. This isn't based on mainstream physics. Moved to speculations.

"Add more mercury" is a new item The OP had a fixed amount. There is no more mercury to add. It sinks less than a foot because the weight of the rock is less than the mercury it displaces. So if the rock is heavier, this is not the case. So you are giving a specific case where this works, and my objection is that there are conditions where it won't, specifically the scenario where "it would be theoretically possible to RAISE a rock, in a tight fitting container, with less than it's own weight of mercury, using the head of mercury to exert the required hydraulic pressure on the base of the rock" the problem being that this won't work under the parameters of the OP, since a tight fitting container is not the described scenario, and as such, you would violate Archimedes principle. As I stated. IOW, your counterexample is not one to which I was voicing an objection. Yeah, my bad on this in a previous post - I googled it and saw a different number. Doesn't change the overall issue, though, just the numbers. Let's say I have a 100cm tall pole with a 1 cm^2 cross section and I put it (long side up) in water, 1 cm deep. The mass of the water is, at most, 1 gram. The mass of the wood is, say 50 grams. You are assuring me it will float. Why does Archimedes principle fail in this case? If your assertion were true, ships/boats would never run aground.

How else do you get it to look like gravity, which has monopoles?

So where is this pump, in the OP? How do you lift the rock? All there is is the static pressure, as far as I can tell. And if it’s not that deep? Just tried it. Unsurprisingly it didn’t work. The wood bottomed out. Why do you think the wood would displace less than its mass?